Saturday, January 31, 2015

It might appear a strangely familiar scene to my regular blog reader. Yes, jules and I are back in Japan, but it's only a visit this time, to our friend and colleagues in Tokyo University and NIES. Somehow we haven't found time to fit in a visit to JAMSTEC, but to be fair, it's the others who we actually collaborate with, and they are paying for the trip. Plenty of opportunity for blue skies research here in the winter!

With a weekend free (jules away on another engagement), I was keen to revisit some local hills, and also test out my new shoes (cheap midweight walking/running things). Some unusually heavy snowfall on Friday, in conjunction with my rather limited kit, almost put me off, but I shouldn't have been worried as 900m hills in Japan are pretty tame. Also, the snow being so fresh had not even had time to thaw and refreeze, so it was quite thick at the top but not very slippery. Ran up in a little over an hour, which gave me plenty of time to enjoy the rest of the day including a soak in the onsen at the bottom

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Amusingly hidden behind a paywall as usual (ironic considering that Nature bases its content and profit on the free labour of others, including the reviewers), there's a letter suggesting peer reviewers should be paid. I've found this idea a handy way of turning down reviewing invitations that I'm not really that desperate to do, without appearing too rude or selfish. "Please Dr Esteemed Scientist, we would greatly value your expertise in reviewing this manuscript." "Yes, of course I'd be happy to review it, and my fee will be £X." "Oh, we don't really think your input is valuable after all. " Kthxbye.

Sunday, January 11, 2015

I'm sure most people get enough unwanted email that they don't really want to share mine, but this solicitation for a junk journal was more amusing than most.

As well as the imaginative and tasteful use of colour in the email, I was particularly impressed by the number of digits they quote for the citation statistics. Wouldn't do to confuse this journal for one with a crappy impact factor of only 0.100!

As a bimonthly
interdisciplinary life science journal, we aim to publish scientific papers in
all fields of the human and natural sciences.

The mission of the Journal is to promote excellence in leadership
practice by providing a venue for academics, students, and practitioners to
publish current and significant empirical and conceptual research in all fields
of sciences. The journal covers a very wide range of areas and we welcome
submission from researchers at all levels and from all over the world.

Tuesday, January 06, 2015

After the shops shut down (Sept 2010), the pawnbrokers and charity shops moved in (May 2012). But now, they're moving out too!

Actually, it probably isn't quite as bad as it looks. At least part of it is stupid town planning - new shopping centres have been built a few minutes walk further south, but Ayr, not being in a growth phase (obviously!), can't support any more commerce, and so the more northerly shops shut down. Indeed, a shiny new British Heart Foundation shop can be found a little further south, nestled between a closing down shelter charity shop and a second hand electronic gizmo store! Only red shops permitted in Ayr.

As you might imagine, Ayr can be quite fun for bargain hunting in the January sales. We've missed many things being away in foreign, and one of the many surprises is that we are wearing the wrong cycling uniform - we wear elegant purple and everyone else wears neon. James thought we would try out the trend (half-price from Ayr Mountain Warehouse). He's certainly the brightest thing around, and no doubt he will come in handy for flagging down passing helicopters, but it is probably a bit much for those of us sitting behind him on the tandem.

Thursday, January 01, 2015

Another year gone, so I suppose it's time for an update on the bet. The NCDC data seems to have moved again, I think this is the current version. 2014 is presumably provisional but unlikely to change much, and it seems timely to produce this post now rather than wait for some future updates.

My plot shows the temperature time series in red, with the 1998-2003 baseline average indicated in blue and the first 3 years of the recent comparison period also averaged in blue. (For those of you who are colour-blind, the blue lines are the ones on top of the red.) In order to win, the next 3 years have to be above the last blue line on average, or to put it another way, in order to lose temperatures would have to drop to values not seen since 2000. I'll let you judge whether that makes me the favourite or not...